NFL considering a change called "The Josh McDaniels Rule"

[ReMeDy]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000917875/Battista-explains-why-Competition-Committee-is-considering-Josh-McDaniels-rule

 

Okay, two points:

1.) Apparently, it's called the Josh McDaniels Rule, so I think that's hilarious Josh McDaniels will be the face of this type of behavior going forward. Regardless, if the rule isn't changed, owners are probably going to ask potential coaches going forward, "Are you going to pull a 'Josh McDaniels' on us?" Not exactly the type of behavior I'd want my name attached to.

2.) This is the second time recently when a rule had to be quickly addressed the following off-season. This happened earlier when the Patriots took advantage of the Baltimore Ravens in the playoff game with the linemen eligible receiver shenanigans. I wonder if New England could please stop forcing the rules to keep being revised like this. It's in bad integrity. It's like those Air Bud movies where the ref says, "There's no rule saying a dog can't play basketball." Well, that's true, but can we stop it anyways? k thx.

[csmopar]

56 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000917875/Battista-explains-why-Competition-Committee-is-considering-Josh-McDaniels-rule

 

Okay, two points:

1.) Apparently, it's called the Josh McDaniels Rule, so I think that's hilarious Josh McDaniels will be the face of this type of behavior going forward. Regardless, if the rule isn't changed, owners are probably going to ask potential coaches going forward, "Are you going to pull a 'Josh McDaniels' on us?" Not exactly the type of behavior I'd want my name attached to.

2.) This is the second time recently when a rule had to be quickly addressed the following off-season. This happened earlier when the Patriots took advantage of the Baltimore Ravens in the playoff game with the linemen eligible receiver shenanigans. I wonder if New England could please stop forcing the rules to keep being revised like this. It's in bad integrity. It's like those Air Bud movies where the ref says, "There's no rule saying a dog can't play basketball." Well, that's true, but can we stop it anyways? k thx.

 I really REALLY hope they pass this rule and name it the Josh MCDaniels rule!! That way EVERYONE for all time will remember how much of a piece of scum he is

[WoolMagnet]

I've been getting these phone calls stating that there are "several charges against me"and if i dont contact them (and probably give morey) , then "local cops will pick me up". Their words.

i noticed the call were coming from Massachusetts.  I'm convinced Kraft put a call center in the bowels of Gillete.

Nothing would surprise me from THAT organization.

[DaveA1102]

Makes sense to me, almost every hire is known by the time we get into the Superbowl anyway, we all knew Patricia was going to the Lions, etc and last year was the same with Shanahan.  Worst kept secrets.

 

Makes no difference to delay the announcement and signing of contract IMO, aside from locking people into decisions.

[crazycolt1]

The main rule that needs to be made is teams can't contact any coach or coordinator till sometime after the super bowl.

[TheMarine]

Forgot another rule, stemming from the 1st AFC Championship game against NE in NE that the Pats won 21-14, which is why touching a receiver beyond the 5 yard line is illegal.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

31 minutes ago, TheMarine said:

Forgot another rule, stemming from the 1st AFC Championship game against NE in NE that the Pats won 21-14, which is why touching a receiver beyond the 5 yard line is illegal.

 

 

Forget another rule?  When a rule needs making or changed it needs to be done. Thus, the meaning of why there are rules.

[our_dbs_rock]

58 minutes ago, TheMarine said:

Forgot another rule, stemming from the 1st AFC Championship game against NE in NE that the Pats won 21-14, which is why touching a receiver beyond the 5 yard line is illegal.

 

 

Illegal contact wasn't a rule change, it was a rule enforcement. It was already in the rule books, it was just not being called.

[Reality Check]

1 hour ago, TheMarine said:

Forgot another rule, stemming from the 1st AFC Championship game against NE in NE that the Pats won 21-14, which is why touching a receiver beyond the 5 yard line is illegal.

 

 

....and don't forget that players are no longer able to jump over the center on a FG attempt.  This one was changed because the Patriots exploited the loophole...

 

When these things happen, this is why many fans say "Belichick is playing chess while other coaches are playing checkers".  The NFL Rules/competition committees do not do a great job of considering ALL possible applications of a rule prior to implementing them.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The main rule that needs to be made is teams can't contact any coach or coordinator till sometime after the super bowl.

 

This is it.

 

Teams will be able to contact AND hire an assistant or coordinator of a team still in the playoffs.

 

Thus will be part of The New Josh McDaniels Rule!  

 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Reality Check said:

....and don't forget that players are no longer able to jump over the center on a FG attempt.  This one was changed because the Patriots exploited the loophole...

 

When these things happen, this is why many fans say "Belichick is playing chess while other coaches are playing checkers".  The NFL Rules/competition committees do not do a great job of considering ALL possible applications of a rule prior to implementing them.

 

Seattle did it too with Bobby Wagner and so did the Broncos. 

[Valpo2004]

3 hours ago, Reality Check said:

....and don't forget that players are no longer able to jump over the center on a FG attempt.  This one was changed because the Patriots exploited the loophole...

 

When these things happen, this is why many fans say "Belichick is playing chess while other coaches are playing checkers".  The NFL Rules/competition committees do not do a great job of considering ALL possible applications of a rule prior to implementing them.

 

To be fair I do have to respect that Belichick in the game at least knows the rule book forward and back and exploits any loophole he can find.

 

But I don't respect him encouraing a coach to go back on his word.  Nor the fact that he takes "liberties" with the rules that are straight up violations.  

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

To be fair I do have to respect that Belichick in the game at least knows the rule book forward and back and exploits any loophole he can find.

 

But I don't respect him encouraing a coach to go back on his word.  Nor the fact that he takes "liberties" with the rules that are straight up violations.  

I don't think Belichick was the one who caused McNoNuts to change his mind. I have a feeling it was Kraft.

[Reality Check]

31 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I don't think Belichick was the one who caused McNoNuts to change his mind. I have a feeling it was Kraft.

BINGO!

[Valpo2004]

41 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I don't think Belichick was the one who caused McNoNuts to change his mind. I have a feeling it was Kraft.

 

Sounded to me like it was a tag team effort.  Word was that they both where talking to him as he was cleaning out his office.  

 

Kraft put more money on the table, that's for certain.  But I'll bet Belichick was there to sow seeds of doubt into his ability to be a head coach.  

 

Besides Kraft wouldn't rush in there and do that unless his HC told him that he really really needs this guy to stay in the fold.  If Belichick said "Forget that McDaniels guy I can do this without him." then Kraft wouldn't have bothered.  

[JimJaime]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

To be fair I do have to respect that Belichick in the game at least knows the rule book forward and back and exploits any loophole he can find.

 

But I don't respect him encouraing a coach to go back on his word.  Nor the fact that he takes "liberties" with the rules that are straight up violations.  

Only commenting on the “making him go back on his word” that article was false as that whole discussion happened 10 years PRIOR!! Not this year..

 

as for the rules being changed.  I call it whining losers syndrome. Baltimore whined because they didn’t know about it (and the. Sucked trying to do it themselves) the Colts whined about contact after 5 yards (even though they did it too). The Raiders whined about the Tuck Rule (which had been called on the Pats the very same year).  Hell the catch rule been changed because “the Pats got the breaks” doesn’t matter it been screwing teams out of victories for years. (Now Bryant incomplete is a catch! THREE years later.) 

 

seems the onky time this committee does anytging is when it seems it seems to help the Pats this “must be changed” lol

 

and clarification not calling any of those teams or fan bases in general whiners just in those specific instances. (Pats fans whine all the time about stuff too)

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, JimJaime said:

Only commenting on the “making him go back on his word” that article was false as that whole discussion happened 10 years PRIOR!! Not this year..

 

as for the rules being changed.  I call it whining losers syndrome. Baltimore whined because they didn’t know about it (and the. Sucked trying to do it themselves) the Colts whined about contact after 5 yards (even though they did it too). The Raiders whined about the Tuck Rule (which had been called on the Pats the very same year).  Hell the catch rule been changed because “the Pats got the breaks” doesn’t matter it been screwing teams out of victories for years. (Now Bryant incomplete is a catch! THREE years later.) 

 

seems the onky time this committee does anytging is when it seems it seems to help the Pats this “must be changed” lol

 

and clarification not calling any of those teams or fan bases in general whiners just in those specific instances. (Pats fans whine all the time about stuff too)

You sound like a  fan.